the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be separated from but the present Ministers of England act in the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The major is evident For 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary unto the Power Office and Calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ. Answ. The ambiguity that is in the termes of this argument is that which makes this Argument seem to many well-meaning people to be of some force which will appear to be a meer fallacie when the terms are clearly opened Concerning which that which is chiefly to be explained is who is the Antichrist here meant and what is meant by Antichristian which hath been so strangely abused especially of late years that every thing that hath been mâ—sliked by an opposite party is branded with the name of Antichrist and mark of the Beast and made a sufficient cause of utter separation from such as own any thing so called and of almost Vatinian hatred The word Antichrist I find not in any place in the Bible but in the Epistles of St. John 1 Joh. 2.18 As ye have heard that Antichrist should come even now are there many Antichrists whereby we know that it is the last time v. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son ch 4.3 And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the World 2 John 7. For many deceivers are entered into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist or the Deceiver and the Antichrist In which passages I observe 1. That Antichrist is described as a Deceiver as one that opposeth the grand truth of the Gospel and therefore the word in the Scripture use is not applied to persecuting Princes and Emperours as the great Turk but to false Teachers 2. That the opposition is by denying not by making himself Christ but by denying Jesus to be the Christ and therefore the term Antichrist is not one that sets up himself as if he were Christ they are expressed by another word Pseudo-Christs Mat. 24.24 but one that is against Christ by teaching contrary to him 3. That the term Antichrist is applied to many false Teachers who were in St. Johns time 4. That yet there was one Antichrist more notable than the rest to come into the World About whom hath been variety of opinions of old and of late much controversie whether he should be a single person or a state or rank of persons succeeding one after another whether the Antichrist be already come or is yet to come whether the Popes of Rome for some generations have been the Antichrist or they and some other The opinions of the Fathers were various as conceiving of Antichrist by conjectures after the Popes of Rome began to be so haughty as to usurp dominion over Emperours and Kings and to be tyrannous in cruel persecutions of them that opposed the Papal corruptions many pious and learned men stuck not to stigmatize the Popes of Rome as Antichrists and since the Reformation begun by Luther it hath been the common tenent of Protestants that the later Popes of Rome have been the man of sin foretold 2 Thess. 2.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. the City of Rome the Whore of Babylon and the Papacy or Popes the Beast described Rev. 17. which is taken for a Prophesie of Antichrist And though some have endeavoured to apply these Prophesies to Caligula Simon Magus Domitian Mahomet the Turkish Sultans yet generally not only the French and German Protestants but also the English the most esteemed for learning even of the Order of Prelates such as Downham Robert Abbot Usher Bedel Prideaux together with King James and his Defendant Andrews and many more have applied the Prophesies in the Revelation and 2 Thess. 2. to the Roman Popes as the Antichrist that was to come Whence every thing that is retained in the Protestant Churches not taught or exemplified in the Scriptures according to the use of the Church of Rome is usually termed Antichristian as coming from Rome and the mark and image of the Beast in which sense I conceive this Author useth the term Antichristian as being against Christ and by power Antichristian he means Authority and Rule Prelatical by Office-Antichristian the Office of Preaching reading the Common-Prayer Administration of Sacraments and Discipline according to the Church of England by Calling Antichristian he means Ordination by a Bishop Now out of this may be gathered an answer to the Argument If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power Office and Calling and the acting in Holy things be by preaching the Doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon Law of the Popes in which Papal power is established the major is granted and the minor denied For though I deny not that a person Ordained by a Popish Bishop if he forsake Popish Doctrine and preach the Truth taught by Protestants may be heard preach the Gospel though he do not renounce his Ordination yet while he holds that Doctrine he is not to be heard as being an Antichristian Deceiver But if by an Antichristian Power Office or Calling be meant by vertue of Ministry according to the Liturgie Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Church of England from the Ordination and License of the Bishops which this Author terms Antichristian the major is denied and to the Arguments to prove it I answer that that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such but only miscalled such by him and therefore till he proves that power-Power-Office and Calling which he calls such and means in his major proposition is such his major is denied and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ or not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ until he proves such acting to be really so And this answer might suffice to invalidate all the other Arguments he brings for his major they all moving upon this unproved Supposition That what he calls Antichristian and standing by and pleading for Antichrist is in truth such But because there are some things to be examined in the other Arguments also I shall survey them also 2. Saith he It 's unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by
virtue of a power derived from him Answ. If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrin of the Church of Rome according to the Trent Council wherein they dissent from Protestants and the power derived from him be meant of the Englâ—sh Bishops Ordination it is denied that the Preachers of England derive their power from Antichrist Pope or Church of Rome and I say that it is meer impudency to say they do who renounce the Popes authority by solemn Oath and separate from the Church of Rome and are persecuted condemned and put to death where the Pope hath power even because they disclaim the Pope and his Doctrin Yet if any should act by virtue of Ordination from the Pope as doubtless many did before the Reformation such as Wickliffe and many others and yet not teach his Doctrin he might be heard teaching the Gospel and in such a case the consequence were not valid and therefore in this sense it may be denied that because it is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him 3. Saith he Christ calls and solemnly charges his upon the penalty of most dreadful Judgments to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18.4 14.9 10 11. Answ. It is true Rev. 18.4 we read thus And I heard another voice from heaven saying Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues Which may be understood of a local departure fâ—om Babylon or Rome when her judgment of Destruction from the Kings of the earth draws nigh but if it be extended further to a departure by forsaking communion with her in Worship and leaving the subjection which was yielded to her in her Government yet is it not understood of every Doctrin the Pope teacheth not of the Bible or Apostles Creed or any Doctrin or Service agreeable to these nor of relinquishing every Rite and Usage though undue and illegitimate which is observed by them but the Fornication that is Idolatry Heresie and other wickedness mentioned v. 3. Chap. 17.2 Revel 14.9 10. it is said If any man worship the Beast and his image and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God By the Beast and his image are meant some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry Some conceive it meant of the Pagan Emperors Others and those both more and more accurate Commentators among the Protestants understand by them the Roman Papacy and Latin Empire the worshiping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts The receiving his mark in the forehead or the hand is allusively to the use of marking Slaves in the forehead and Souldiers in the hand to profess themselves servants to the Popes and ready to fight for them which Mr. Brightman makes to be in the Roman Clergy their indelible character in Ordination in the Emperors their Oath of Protection of the Popes in the Common people their assuming the names of Papists and Roman Catholiques Mr. Mede more exactly in his Comment on Rev. 13.18 thus To receive the mark of the name of the Beast is to subject himself to his authority and to acknowledge him to be his Lord but to receive the number is to imbrace his impiety derived unto him from the Dragon to wit the Idolatry of the Latins whence that happily will not be unworthy consideration although no man can receive the mark of the name of the Beast or be subject to his authority but together also he must receive his number that is be must needs be Partaker of his impiety yet it may be that one may admit the number or impiety of the Beast but yet refuse the mark or name That which now long since is true of the Greeks which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image and receiving his mark in his forehead or in his hand is not retaining of every usage of the Papists no not though it be Corrupt and Superstitious as many zealous persons against Popery but superficially viewing the text conceive much less such customs as are not superstitious in their use but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes and adoring Images the Host Reliques Crosses invocations of Saints and such like impieties which the present Ministers of England do profess to abhorr and therefore it is without cause that they are charged with receiving the maâ—k of the Beast and people are affrighted with the penalty of the dreadful Judgments Rev. 14.10 unless they separate from them and their Ministry as a thing of Antichrist 4. Saith he There is not a command in the Scripture enioyning Saints to take heed of being deceived to try the Spirits because many Antichrists are gone abroad into the World but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of this Assertion Answ. I grant it if the Assertion were they that act in the holy things as acknowledging the Power teaching the Doctrin owning the Calling of him that is truly Antichrist are not to be heard but to be separated from But being understood of other things which the Separatists call Antichristian it is not true nor proved by the commands in Scripture which forbid only to reject Antichristian Doctrin and Worship not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist The Baptism given in Popery is not by all Separatists rejected as Antichristian there is less reason to call the Ministry of England a thing of Antichrist 5. Saith he The institution of Officers of his own by Christ to be continued in the way appointed by him to the end of the World Ephes. 4.11 Answ. It is true that Christ when he went up into heaven gave gifts to men some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and that some of these are to be continued to the end of the World and in that way he hath appointed But that there is any particular way of Election Ordination and Mission of ordinary Pastors and Teachers in those words appears not nor how the major is proved those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian so called not proved Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but separated from I discern not unless this be the Argument Christ hath appointed these therefore no other are to be heard but to be seperated from which overthrows the hearing of and communion with gifted Brethren whom he would have heard for they are no Officers of Christs institution 6. Saith he That there is not one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry with innumerable things of the like tendency and import that might be produced if needful are such a basis upon which the truth of the major
proposition stands as cannot be easily shaken or removed Answ. Though there be no one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry as theirs is that act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling whether real or supposed as such yet if any that so acts as suppose a Dominican Fryer or Jesuite in the Indies do Preach the Gospel truly there is a blessing promised in Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry Christ having said Luke 11.28 Blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it yet were there no promise of blessing the major is not proved unless this were true they are not to be heard but to be separated from to whose Ministry as such a blessing is not promised which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Brethren unless they can produce such a promise yea every action indifferent should be unlawful unless it have a blessing promised to it What more he can say for his major yet rests in his breast and so needs no answer till it be produced I hasten to the proof of his minor Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England prove not their Office not to be from Christ. The minor saith he wants not sufficient demonstration First the present Ministers of England are either from Christ or from Antichrist There is no medium a Linsey-woolsey-Ministry that is partly of Christ partly of Antichrist as 't is not to be proved by Scripture so will it not be abetted That they are not from Christ hath in part been proved already and may further be evinced 1. Their names are forraign to the Scripture where read we of Deacons in their sense Priests as distinguished from Christians in the New Testament Deans Cannons Petty-Cannons Prebendaries Arch-Deacons Lord Bishops Parsons Vicars c. these are only found in the Popes Pontifical whence they are derived Answ. It hath been abetted by Mr Bradshaw in his Answer to Francis Johnson his second reason against hearing the Ministers of the Church-Assemblies of England whose Arguments this Author hath revived though answered long since by Mr. William Bradshaw and the answers vindicated by Mr. Thomas Gataker from Mr. Cans reply that there is a medium and that a Ministry may be from Christ in respect of the thing Ministred though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it yea he saith It is not necessary that the Ministry of Priests and Deacons though ordained by Antichrist himself should be the Ministry of his Apostasie but notwithstanding his Ordination their Ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther Huss Wickliffe and others I add that if by being from Christ or Antichrist be understood of outward calling as this Author seems to mean Ministers mâ—y be neither from Christ nor Antichrist and yet true Ministers as those that Preached Christ even of envy and strife yet St. Paul saith Philip. 1.15 18. Notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or truth Christ is Preached and I therein do rejoyce yea and will rejoyce But let us consider his proofs that the present Ministers of England are not from Christ. To the first I answer that the term Priests as distinguished from all Christians in the sense used by the Convocation of the Church of England is the same with Presbyters as appears by the Latin translation of the 39 Articles of the Church of England Art 32.36 extant by it self and in the Corpus Syntagma confessionum of the Protestant Churches and the Letters of Orders under the seals of Bishops in Latin and this is sure found in Scripture Act. 11.30 c. The other names note not any Ministry different from the Ministry of Christ but are used to signifie some difference in their maintenance or places which may be annexed to them and yet their Ministry from Christ. If this Authors reason were good the names are forraign to the Scripture therefore the things it would follow that Congregational Churches are forraign to Scripture Lecturers Sacraments Ruling Elders Itinerant Preachers c. because their names are not there But this Author adds So are 2. Their Officers Deacons attending tables we read of but Deacons Praying Preaching Administring Sacraments so called by virtue of an Office-power an order of the first step to the Priesthood we find not Priests in the Old Testament both true and false we read of In the New Saints are so called 1. In respect of Analogie to the ritual Priest of old whose prerogative it was to come near to God Deut. 21.5 to whom through Christ Saints have access with boldness Ephes. 2.18 3.19 James 4.8 2. In respect of their union and engrafture into Christ the great High-Priest over the house of God 3. In respect of that analogie there is betwixt what Christ hath done for them as Priest and by his Spirit worketh in them He offered up Sacrifice so do they Psal. 116.17 141.2 Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.14 He was crucified died so are they Rom. 6.6 7 8 c. Gal. 2.20 4. As Priests they are anointed to the participation of do thereby attain to a kind of holy and intimate communion with Christ in all his glorious Offices Rev. 5.10 But an office of Priesthood in men for the Ministery of the Gospel that are to be branded by men in that their Office must Preach what they would have them and cease when they would have them as is the case of the present Ministry of England the Scripture is a stranger to Answ. Though the present Ministers of England men are to hear be more than Deacons yet this may be said that if it be supposed that the Office of a Deacon be not now to attend Tables as the first seven Deacons were Act. 6.2 yet according to the book of Ordination it is his Office where provision is so made to search for the sick poor and impotent people of the Parish to intimate their Estates Names and places where they dwell unto the Curate that by his Exhortation they may be relieved with the almes of the Parishioners or others If they be appointment to Pray Preach and Administer the Sacraments they have this to plead that Philip the Deacon did both Preach and Baptize Act. 8.5 12 38. that St. Paul requires of the Deacons 1 Tim. 3.9 That they hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience and v. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus and therefore may the Deacons Office be well conceived the first step to the Priesthood that is the Office of a Presbyter As for the word Priest as it answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament if the Saints as Saints may be termed Priests then may the Elders or the best of them surely be called Priests yea and that in
bounded with such terms as make it not intolerable sure it is nothing like that which is required of Papists according to the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth supra forma juramenti professionis fidei To the twelfth The practice of leaving Benefices is not strange to any Churches even from New England some have come into Old England leaving their places there nor are there wanting like instances of Congregational men at home perhaps for greater benefit without consent of the people The practices are not on any side justifiable in all yet we read in Scripture of removals of Ministers from one place to another upon urgent occasions To the thirteenth The person Ordained hath authority committed to him by the Bishop to preach the Word of God in the Congregation where he should be lawfully appointed that is by License which is thought needful to be added besides Ordination because all persons are not alike fitted for all Congregations the Voice and other abilities not serving for one Congregation which will for another To the fourteenth Silencing Suspending and Degrading may be necessary in some cases Tit. 1.11 and 3.10 if the Laws intrust the Prelates with it so it hath been in other Churches besides the Popish The abuse of it is justifiable in none To the fifteenth Inequality is judged to have been in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles of Christ to the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and hath been in some sort in all Churches which have been well ordered and too much experience shews that by reason of the inequality of parts and minds it is necessary to settled order What is undue in the Popish or Protestant Churches should be charged on the Authors not on the Ministry it self To the sixteenth The Vestments of English Priests are not all the same with Popish those that are it 's denied to have the same use and therefore not to be charged with the same superstition To the seventeenth Even the late Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship and Ministration The Common-prayer Book that now is urged should not be judged the worse in those prayers or portions of Scripture which are holy and good because they were in the Popes Porluis no more than the acknowledgment of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mark 5.7 And therefore King Edward the 6. his plea for it was good and the thing not to be misliked because used in the Roman Church who though they have many great corruptions in their Doctrine and Worship yet have they retained the Bible Apostles Creed many prayers from ancient Fathers and some Popes who were holy men and Martyrs in the first Ages which are not to be rejected because continued by later vicious and Antichristian Popes That which is insinuated as if the Common-prayer Book now in use were little different from the Popes Portuis or Missal is very untruly and unjustly suggested He that shall impartially and without prejudice compare the one with the other shall find a vast difference in the things liable to exception I have made some view of the Roman Missal of Pius the 5. and Clement the 8. and Breviary of Pius the 5. and Urban the 8. and though I deny not sundry Collects Prayers Hymns Lessons Psalms Epistles and Gospels are the same in the Common-prayer Book in English with those in Latine as being either parts of Holy Scripture or agreeable to it yet there are so many differences in fundamentals of Doctrine substantials of Worship and in Rituals as the invocation of Saints and the opinions of Merit sacrifice for Quick and Dead adoration of the Host vertue of the Cross half Communion and many more things material that I cannot but judge that either much ignorance or much malice it is that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book as if it were the Popish Mass Book or as bad as it and to deterr men from joyning with those Prayers and Services therein which are good as if it were joyning with Antichrist the Pope or receiving the mark of the Beast when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes were burnt for it is impudent falshood By the parallel particulars and such other as might be alledged cannot be inferred an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England In many particulars might there be shewn a parallelism between Ministers of the Congregational Churches and Presbyterial and the Popish yet an exact symmetrie would not thence be demonstrated Few of these particulars alledged are unjustifiable those that are if not excusable yet are far from that which is the main thing charged on the Papists and disputed against learnedly by Mr. Francis Mason against Champney that they Ordain Priests to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass for Quick and Dead which is abhorred by the English Prelates and Ministers and they are not to be charged to symbolize in Office with the Popish Order of Priests for which this Author hath produced nothing though it were the chief thing to be proved and therefore the minor of his Syllogism is denied and it is manifestly false which he saith he hath abundantly demonstrated it he having said nothing to prove it in the main Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian but may be found in Scripture It follows Secondly Those that receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office or Calling act in the Holy things of God by virtue of an Anâ—ichristian Power Office and Calling But the present Ministers of England receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office and Calling Therefore The consequence of the major or first proposition is manifest the Office of a Lord Bishop is Antichristian therefore those that act by virtue of a Power Office or Calling received from them act by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling That the Office of Lord Bishops is Antichristian one would wonder should be denied in such a day as this after so full a demonstration thereof by many witnesses of Christ who have wrote so clearly in this matter as if they carried the Sun-beams in their right hand especially that it should be denied by persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles if indeed any of them do deny it To prosecute this matter to the uttermost is not our present intendment the intelligent Reader knows where to find it done already to our hand and if after all that hath been said any through self love or fear of persecution will herein be ignorant we might say Let them be ignorant Answ. The Office Power and Calling received from a Lord Bishop is all one with the Office Power and Calling
determined to be the more excellent of all Episcopal terms the Roman Bishops should alone retain it whereas before it was common to all Bishops hath been judged deservedly the head of Antichrist which Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome had not long before lib. 7. indict 2. Epist. 96. made Antichristian and the Usurper a forerunner of Antichrist yet the Bishops of Rome in the first ages were not so accounted and therefore it follows not though the later Popes be the head of Antichrist that the Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been Offices perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome which deserve not that censure but approbation rather Nor is it necessary that every thing derived from Popes since they have been the head of Antichrist and continued only in the Papacy should be Antichristian the head of Antichrist may institute something that is not Antichristian 2. It is not true that the Office of Lord Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy It is manifest in the first Nicene Council Canon 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord Bishops with their Office and that Council was in the fourth Century about the year 326. And that in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued And therefore though no other of the Reformed Churches had retained that Office besides the English yet there would be no need for the Bishops of England to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministery But it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches reformed that have separated from the Papacie in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents which is the same in Latine with Bishops in Greek and that it is false that the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church Yea it is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by the reception at the Synod of Dort and innumerable other wayes that there hath been no such rejection or detestation either by any Church reformed or Eminent Writers of them except those of the Separation who have been also averse from the Discipline of the Protestant Reformed Churches beyond Sea and have given opprobrious Language to and of them as well as the English As for the testimonies here cited some of them as the Speeches of Hierome the Helvetian Confession of the Lord Cobham are only about the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters not of their Office most of them as that of Wickliffe used before by Bernard in his Tract to Pope Eugenius those of the University and Church of Geneva Beza's the Belgick French Confessions Marlorat Bale are against the Popish Hierarchy those of Cartwright Fenner and Authors of the Admonition were Speeches of Adversaries which in no Court pass for testimonies to which Arch-Bishop Whitgift and others have given answers long since It is added Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Object One stone of Offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further it is this Though Lord Bishops are Antichristian yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so For they are also Presbyters and Ordain as Presbyters Answ. Give me leave to say that were not men resolved to say any thing that they might be thought to have somewhat to say we had not heard of this Objection For 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Ordination is false 1. Contrary to their own avowed Principles their Lordships think it too great a debasement to be degraded from their Lordly dignity to so mean an Office 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops 3. Contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so Ordained Strange That it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of Ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian Ordination invalid But 2. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the Institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end Thus far of the third argument Answ. 'T is true to some that have either renounced Episcopal Ordination as Antichristian or refused to hear Ministers Ordained by Bishops as acting by virtue of Antichristian Calling it hath been told that the Bishops were first Presbyters and Ordained Presbyters together with Presbyters and some of them that held that a Bishop and a Presbyter were not superiour in Order but in Degree did Ordain as Presbyters and that therefore if the Ordination of Presbyters be not Antichristian the Ministers should retain their Ordination by Bishops and the people hear them though that were yielded that Lord Bishops Office were Antichristian Now nothing is here replied to the allegation that Bishops Ordain with Presbyters the Bishop with the Priests present are to lay their hands on the Ordained according to the Book of Ordination Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy not to be an Order above Presbytery Nor to this that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superiour Order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that conveighs a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor and by that hath power to conveigh it the grant is good But he sayes 1. It is false they Ordain as Presbyters it is contrary to their principles Answ. Whether it be so in all is uncertain nor do I know how this Author can prove it unless they did declare it which is more than I have learned 2. It is contrary to the known Law of the Land Answ. 1. It is not true that the Bishops do receive power by the Law to act in Ordination in it are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops for the Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law 2. The Law which gives power to act ties not Bishops to think themselves of a Superiour Order to Presbyters nor to act with such an intention or under such a notion 3. They have nullified Presbyterian Ordination and required Re-ordination by a Bishop Answ. They do not nullifie Ordination by a Presbyterie in foreign Churches but in England perhaps because the Laws require Episcopal Ordination and it is conceived necessary to avoid Schism
way that what in their preaching and practice he and they did pull down and destroy conceâ—ning the Pâ—elatical conforming Preachers their communion and Church government and worship by the Common-Prayer Book they do not by conformity in hearing and communion build up because if they should do so they should cause the opposite party whom he counts the enemies of the Lord to triumph that they have brought them to recantation and returning to what they had left and to blaspheme or speak evil of the holy way of endeavouring Reformation they formerly took in the day of liberty because they are now fallen into a day of trouble On the other side That this Author and those of his way being satisfied that God is calling all godly sober Christians to have nothing to do with but to separate from this generation of men that is Ministers that conform to the Common-Prayer Book and Episcopal Government and that these now hearers of them were once satisfied of the same that yet they should disobey this calling of God and hold communion with them have most just cause of offence for their so doing But I presume the godly sober Christians in the Objection were never satisfied with this way of separation which this Author saith God calls them to but though they have been for Reformation yet not for such violent practises and preaching as it may be gathered this Author hath been for as to pull up root and branch of the old form of Government to unsettle all the Ministers to set up itinerant Preachers any gifted Brethren though many of them never studied Divinity but had gotten some ability by hearing Preachers and other wayes to speak of practical points without any ability to convince gainsayers and that they should take away the frame of parochial Churches and gather Churches out of Churches which should though but a few be an entire Church within themselves for government without appeal or subordination to any other Minister or Synod that they should be tyed to use no Form no not the Lords Prayer in effect that there should be as some were wont to speak overturning overturning overturning without setling any thing making the Pastors eligible by every small company that should call themselves a Church who should admit and excommunicate by most voices censure their Pastor desert him allot him maintenance and deprive him as they saw cause Sure the godly sober Châ—istians who now are offended at this Authors separation were then offended as many of their writings then did shew and the Apology of the ejected Non-conformists lately hath shewed p 136. of the 2 d. Edition and particularly at that eminent Independent who would not have the Lords Prayer used in the prescript form of words p. 10. which and the like courses they conceive were in the day of liberty evil and occasions of the day of trouble and if persisted in likely to bring more trouble on themselves and others who neither then nor now did oâ— do approve of such rigid separation or deformation of all instead of Reformation conceiving a middle way might agree better with truth and peace They condemn such heavy censures of them that aâ—e of the opposite party as if they were the enemies of the Lord a generation of men they were called by God to have nothing to do with but to separate from them sith they are Christians of the same Faith they judge that this Author and such as acted as he seems to have done should have brought glory to God and peace to their own consciences if they had un-said those things which abusing their liberty they vented heretofoâ—e and did endeavour to promote union as they have done division and this would tend to their honour as Augustine's Retâ—actaâ—ions did and would not cause the enemies of the Lord to triumph and blaspheme but both them and all sober godly Christians to rejoyce and bless God for their so doing who are now justly offended at these Separatists pertinacy and have by their moderate conformity in hearing Ministers who preach the Gospel and joyning in the publique worship of prayer and the communion given no just cause of offence to this Author or any other Nor do they think iâ— their duty to meet together as a sepaâ—ate Church Nor do they conceive that Heb. 10 â—5 requires such assembling but that the foâ—saking thâ— assembling there meant was the forsaking the assemblâ—ng of Christâ—ans and going back from Christianity to Judaism as the whole series of the Text shews and that their joyning in the publique assemblies in England is agreeable to the precept there and that it â—ends noâ— to Apâ—stacy But the Assemblies according to the Separatists pâ—inciples are Schismatical and that spiritual Saints will be offended at them at giving just cause of Scandal nor can they expect peace by so doing Nor is that which is here made a rule 〈◊〉 that way that hath most of the crâ—ss in it right suffeâ—ings being nâ—t â—ight unless the cause be for God Sometimes the â—onforming 〈◊〉 sometimes the Popish Prâ—estâ— have been under sufferings yet I suppose this Author would not have men go their way and therefore his rule is not sale until the cause for which we are to suffer be proved to be for God Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Arg. 8. That which Saints cannot do without being guilty of partaking with others in their sin is utterly unlawful for them to do But the Saints cannot attend upon the ministry of England without being guâ—lty of partaking with them in their sin Therefore The major Proposition is clearly bottom'd upon Scripture Psal. 50. â—8 Ephes. 5.7 1 Tim. 5.22 2 John 11. Revel 18.4 which mâ—ght be abundantly demonstrated were it needful Sure that God who commands me to abstain from all appearance of evil 1 Thes. 5.22 never enjoyned expects noâ— that I should be in the practice of what without sin cannot be performed by me The 〈◊〉 Pâ—â—pâ—sition That the Saints cannot attend upon the mâ—â—â—stry of England without being partakers with them in theiâ— sin will admit of a speedy dispuâ—â—h Two things are briefly to be enquired into 1. What that or those sins are we suppose the Ministers of England to be guilty of 2. How it will appear That any person's amending upon their ministâ—y renders him guilty of partaking with them therein Of the former we have already treaâ—â—d and proved beyond what any are able to say to the contrary That they are guilty of the sins of worshipping God in a way that is not of his appointment of acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian pâ—wer office or calling of opposing really the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ of using and conforming to modes and rites in worship not appointed by the Lord that have been abused to Idoâ—atry c. Nor is it denied by our conforming Brethren but with some of these things the present
is this First those Ministers that in their Names Offices Admission into their Offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office Power Calling received from him Secondly Those Ministers that in their Names Office Admission into their Office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be by those with whom we have to do are not the Ministers of Christ have not received any Power Office or Calling from him to act in the holy things of God But such as hath been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England therefore these have received no Power Office or Calling from Christ and so are Antichristian Quod erat demonstrandum Answ. Of these particulars the three first are granted and avouched as not Popish but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox antiquity To the fifth I return the same answer that Arch-Bishop Whitgift gave Surely if those things which were good in the Popes Pontifical and either contained in the Scripture or well used before in the ancient Church or well prescribed by General Councils be also in our Pontifical our Pontifical is never the worse for having of them for if the thing it self be good and profitable it forceth not from whom it was taken or of whom it was used so that now it be rightly used But it is most false and untrue that the Book of Ordering Ministers and Deacons c now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as you might have seen if you had compared them together But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours To the sixth though the English Prelates avouch not the Opinions of the Popish Writers of giving grace ex opere operato by the Sacrament of Orders as they call it of the indelible character imprinted by the laying on of hands of the Prelates with such other of their errours as wherein they over-magnifie the power they have in their imposition of hands yet they plead that they do use the words Joh. 20.22 23. in the Ordination of Priests without blasphemy or absurdity Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to the Admonition p. 49. of the Edition 1572. in 40. To use these words Receive the Holy Ghost in Ordering of Ministers which Christ himself used in appointing his Apostles is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words that he used in the Supper But it is blasphemy thus outragiously to speak of the words of Christ. The Bishop by speaking these words doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost no more than he doth to remit sins when he pronounceth the remission of sins but by speaking these words of Christ Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted c. he doth shew the principal duty of a Minister and assureth him of the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit if he labour in the same accordingly Mr. Richard Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. sect 77. The Holy Ghost may be used to signifie not the person alone but the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the very power and authority which is given men in the Church to be Ministers of Holy things is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is Author and therefore he which giveth this power may say without absurdity or folly Receive the Holy Ghost such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued his Church withal See Edward Stilling fleets Irenicum part 2. c. 6. p. 231. Bradshaw against Fr. Johnson p. 65. of Gatakers Rejoynder to Can. Though in their Ordination of Ministers the Bishops use as a Ceremonial speech to say Receive the Holy Ghost and therein peradventure offer some force to the Scripture unto which they allude yet they disclaim all actual power and authority of giving the person or gifts of the Holy Ghost unto men Besides I add sith the laying on of hands is together with the designation of the person a sign of prayer as Mat. 19.13 Mark 10.16 and in Confirmation and the Apostles use Acts 8.15 and in Ordination Acts 13.3 those words may be used prayer-wise and freed from exception Whereto perhaps that makes which Dr. Field l. 5. of the Church ch 56 hath The Council of Carthage 4. Canon 3. provideth that in the Ordination of a Presbyter the Bishop holding his hand on his head and blessing him all the Presbyters that are present shall hold their hands by the hand of the Bishop and the person Ordained kneeling joyns in prayer for the Blessing So Dr. Sparks conceived it might be understood ch 15. of Unity and Uniformity Ecclesiast disc of the French Reformed Churches art 8. ch 1. The Ordained shall kneel when they impose their hands on him To the seventh Ordination is not alwayes at a Cathedral and may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest To the eighth That it is not alwayes so nor when so Popish See before in Answer to the Preface sect 22. and to chap. 2. sect 3. To the nineth To offer a persons self for Ordination may be no evil but in some cases a duty 1 Tim. 3.1 Isa. 6.8 Giving money for Letters of Ordination is no simony but only wages to the Register for his writing as when the Register was paid for writing and sealing the Instrument signifying the person to be an approved Preacher Against any Bishops taking money for Ordition and the Registers exacting overmuch provision is made Canon 135 Eccl 1. Jac. and even in the Council of Trent Sess. 21. Decr. de reformatione c. 1. To the tenth The Priests of England are not to be Ordained without some title according to Cannon 33. even the Trent Council ubi supra c. 2. hath made some provision about it It is necessary that some bâ— Ordained though they have not a fixed flock to attend upon Ministers are necessary for Armies Navies and sundry occasions which continue but for a while Even the Synod of Dort made some Orders about such and the New-England Elders that imploy Ministers to teach the Native salvage people do justifie the Ordaining to Office without a flock to attend upon unless they would have them imployed without Ordination which were incongruous to the Holy Ghosts direction Act 13.2 If Itinerant Preachers should have Approbation they should have Ordination To the eleventh subscription is required by the 36. Canon to three Articles about the Kings Supremacy the Books of Common-prayer and Ordination and the 39. Articles of Religion at Ordination the Priest promiseth obedience to his Ordinary to follow with a glad mind and will his godly admonitions and submit himself to his godly judgment by the late Act unfained Assent and Consent is further required but none of these by Oath the Oath of Canonical Obedience is only required at Institutions into Benefices and is
which when they have proved that ever the Lord Jesus did intrust an Assembly of the greatest Murderers Adulterers and Idolaters in the world with any power for the sending forth Officers to act in the holy things of God to and for the Church his Spouse will be admitted but that they shall never be able to do so hugely importunate are some of them herein that they are not ashamed to ask us VVhy Ordination may not be received from the Church so called of Rome as well as the Scripture To which we shall only say That when it is proved that we received the Scripture from that Apostate Church by vertue of any Authority thereof as such somewhat of moment may be admitted in that enquiry but this will never be done T is true the Bible was kept among the people in those parts where the Pope prevaileth yet followeth it not from hence that we received it from their Authority as Ordination is received If we did why did we not keep it as delivered from them to us in the Vulgar Latine So that of these things there is not the same reason It will not then be denied but the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office power received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters that Church being eminently so as hath been proved Answ. This Objection though it be but a slight thing and of no real force to nullifie or invalidate the Calling of the present Ministers yet because the well-affected Protestants are zealous against Popery as having learned the Pope to be Antichrist and that terrible threanings are in the Revelation against any communion with any thing that is suggested to them by those to whom they adhere to come from Rome or the Pope as being Antichristian it is needful that this thing should be cleared for rectifying the mistakes of people that their unadvised zeal against some things as Popish which are not may not occasion unnecessary Schism and such other evils into which persons perhaps otherwise of honest hearts cast themselves to their ruine It is known to those that study Controversies between Protestants and Papists that this hath been one grand Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches that their Ministers are not rightly Ordained and therefore they have no succession which by Bellarmine in his Book de Notis Ecclesiae c. 8. is made a Note of the Church and therefore they are not a true Church but schismatical The Answers given to this Objection are 1. For the truth of the Reformed Churches the succession in them of true Doctrine is sufficient to demonstrate them true Churches as I have asserted in my Romanism discussed against the Manuel of H. T. Art 2. 2. That Ministers may be sent of God who teach the Doctrine of God though they have not Ordination according to Church-Canons as was the case at the first beginning of the Reformation in which there was something extraordinary by reason of the long tyranny of Popes and the great corruptions in the Latine Churches 3. That their Ministers were at first ordained by the Popish Bishops and though they did after renounce the offering Sacrifice for quick and dead yet even by the Papists own Canons and resolutions of their Casuists their power to administer the Word and Sacraments according to the Word of God continued still 4. That those who had been thus ordained had power to ordain others for which the French and other Protestants of the Presbyterial Government allege That Presbyters may Ordain even by the confession of the Romanists and that Bishops though they be hereticks in their account yet they lose not the power of Ordaining no not when degraded of which more may be seen in Rivet sum Controv. tract 2. q. 1. Alsted suppl ad Chamier panstrat de memb Eccl. milit c. 8. Ames Bellar. Enerv. tom 2. l. 3. de clericis c. 2 sect 10. and many more who have still pleaded That notwithstanding the impurity of the Church of Rome yet the Calling which Luther Zuinglius and others had from Popish Bishops was sufficient without any other Ordination for an ordinary calling to the Office of a Minister and that those who have succeeded them have been true Pastours in their Churches The English Protestants who have had Bishops above Presbyters have advantage above other Protestants to plead for the regularity of the Ordination of their Ministers because they have been ordained by Bishops and those Bishops consecrated by other Bishops according to the â—anons of the Ancients in a succession continued from Bishops acknowledged by the Papists themselves To evacuate this plea saith Dr. Prideaux Orat. 8. de Vocatione Ministrorum The Papists would fain find a defect in the succession of the English Bâ—shâ—ps from the preceding Bâ—shops and in the solemnity of their consecration And being beaten off from the denial of Cranmers consecration by the producing of the Popes acknowledging of him Arch-bishop and the register of his consecration as also of other Bishops in King Edwards dayes After Christophorus à sacrâ—bâ—sco or Father Halywood of Dublin in Ireland Anthony Champney and James Wadsworth say That Arch bishop Parker Bishop Jewel and those others which were made Bishops in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth though theâ—e were an attempt of their consecration at a Tavern at the Nags-head in Cheapside yet could not they procure an old Catholick Bishop to joyn with them and therefoâ—e their consecration was disappointed To shew the falshood of this fable and to make evident the compleat solemnity of Paâ—kers and others consecration and the truth of the Ordination of the English Ministers even by the Canons of the Papists Bishop Bâ—del in his Answer to Wadsworth ch 11. and Mr. Francis Mason in his Vindication of the English Ministry have fully proved the solemnity of the consecration out of the Aâ—ch-bishops Begister to have been â—ight and the succession to have been legitimate even according to the Canon Law and the Ministers Ordination to have been good though not ordained sacrificing Priests for quick and dead against the exceptions of Bellarmine 〈◊〉 and such other of the Papists ' as have denied Protestant Ministers true Pastours and their Churches true Churches It is not unlikely that some of the Prelaâ—ical party have vented in writings and conference such expressions as carry a shew of their disclaiming the Churches which have not Bishops and extolling the Popish Churches Government and avouching their Ordination from Rome which hath caused a great aveâ—seness in many zealous persons from Bishops and the conforming Ministers and is taken hold of by this Author and other promoters of Separation as an engine sutable to that end But as those learned men Bedel Mason Prideaux and others have pleaded the succession of Bishops from the Popish Bishops and the Ordination of Ministers by them there is no cause given of that out-cry that is made of the Bishops
Christ in the Scripture Sect. 7. The Office of Lord Bishops not from the Papacy Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Chap. 4. Arg. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices doctrinally may be heard Sect. 2. Every not hearkening to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Sovereign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the will of Christ by not joyning in the separation pleaded for Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church are not Christs Institution Sect. 6. No contempt of the Authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment Sects 8. Prophecying is not opposed by the Ministers Sect. 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie separation Chap. 5. Sect. 1. All owning of orders different from or contrary to Christs proves not a denial of his Offices Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Sect. 4. It s no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Sect. 5. All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture Sect. 6. It s not proved that the Ministers of England own constitutions contrary to the Revelation of Christ. Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Sect. 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation Sect. 9. Receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 Sect. 10. Forbidding to Marry or eat Flesh at certain times are not Characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant Sect. 11. No such headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christs proves not owning another King co-ordinate to him Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ not monstrous Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel Chap. 6. Arg. 5. Sect 1. False Doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those Ezek. 22.28 Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places sadning some mens hearts not characters of a false Prophet Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Sect. 8. The charge Ezek. 22.26 reacheth not the Ministers of England Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepheards meant Ezek. 34.4 Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Rev. 13.11 Chap. 7. Arg 6. Sect 1. All Idolatry is exhibiting Divine Worship to a creature Sect. 2. All will-worship of God is not Idolatry Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment Sect. 5. Common-Prayer Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book worship is not of pure humane invention Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the worship of the Reformed Churches Sect. 8. No particularity instituted is a meer circumstance yet particularities undetermined are Sect. 9. Praying in a form may be praying in the Spirit Sect. 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Worship Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by the Office Power and Modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry as other Protestants Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office Power from Idolaters Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry Sect. 15. Kneeling in the receiving the Sacramental Elements is not Idolatry Sect. 16. The crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Chap. 8. Arg. 7. and 8 Sect. 1. Every offence of others makes not sinful that which is otherwise lawful Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty Sect. 3. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers Sect. 4. It is not scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.16 Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Chap. 9. Arg 9 10 11 12. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. Sect. 2. Meeting of Christians as a distinct body is not Christs Institution Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs Institution Sect. 4. To attend only on the Ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not Christs appointment Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the Temples in England as places of false Worship Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostasie Sect. 10. Pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted Chap. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair as Teachers not as Magistrates Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church Officers of Gods appointment Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses Law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Sect. 6. Christ and his Apostles going to the Jewish Meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practise Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Sect. 11. The example of the learned
and more exceptions then the present Ministers It is added Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church-officers of Gods appointment But let this be granted Suppose 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be the preachers and expounders of the Law in that day the seat mentioned to be a Ministerial seat Yet this will not at all help them in the matter in controversie except it be granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawful but a false Ministry that had surreptitiously climbed up into this Ministerial seat for who sees not the invalidity and nothingness of this argument 'T was lawful to hear the Scribes and Pharisees which were the lawful Church-officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him therefore 't is lawful to hear persons that have not any such authority from Christ but are meer intuders and Ministers of Antichrist as the present Ministers of England have been proved to be now this upon that supposition that they were Ministers we cannot yield to these reasons 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites John 1.19 and this is the record of John when the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him Who art thou v. 24. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day 2. These of all others were most apt to question the authority of such as taught the people So when John appears preaching and baptizing and professes to them that he was not the Christ nor Elias nor Prophet who was expected by the people of the Jews they immediately question his authority John 1.25 Why baptizest thou then which they could not be supposed to have the face to do if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders Nay 3. When they question Christ himself about his authority he asks not them from whence they had theirs which doubtless upon that occasion he would have done had they not been lawfully seated in the seat they did possess but from whence John had his who was esteemed as a prophet 4. We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees condemning them of pride hypocrisie avarice c. but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses seat is by him charged upon them or in the least intimated which doubtless would have been had they been guilty thereof I reply that this grant that the Scribes and Pharisees were preachers and expounders of the Law in that day will help the objectours in the matter in controversie though it be not granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawfull but a false Ministry that had surrepticiously climbed up into this ministerial seat For they are assured that this Author hath not proved nor can prove the present Ministers of England to be meer intruders and Ministers of Antichrist and therefore need not this supposition concerning the Scribes and Pharisees to prove Christs allowing the hearing of the present Ministers Only this is urged that there is as much exception and more against the Pharisees teaching than against the present Ministers and yet they might be heard therefore with better reason may the present Ministers be heard Nevertheless I deny that the Scribes and Pharisees which they were to hear were the lawfull Church Officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him it being certain that as he saith they were a particular Sect among the Jews no where appointed by God to this office of Priesthood or teaching but taken up by men as orders of Friers among the Papists though some of them were Priests and some of them Rabbins or teachers of the law and educated thereunto as teachers of Divinity are in the Schools among us at this day which if the Ministers of England had no further ordination being the condition of most or very many of the present Ministers in England might justifie the hearing of them as well as the hearing the Pharisees who had no better calling to that function As for the reasons of this Author the first is not valid For it proves only that some of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees not all St. Paul certainly was not though a Pharisee nor that those that sate in Moses chair were Priests for all were not there being many thousands of Pharisees who were not Rabbins St. Paul was a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee when he sate at Gamaliels feet Acts 22.3 yet not a Doctor of the Law sitting in Moses his chair Nor if they were Priests doth it prove they were the lawfull Ministers of that day For to say nothing of Christs Apostles who were at that day the lawfull Ministers with and under Christ himself it is certain the Priests of those times got their places as for instance the High Priest by undue and unlawfull wayes by bribing the Roman Deputy as Josephus reports and therefore if it were proved they were Priests yet they are not proved to be lawful Ministers Yea that which is said of their Ordination and Education by the most favourable Writers of the Jewes proves they had some kind of entrance into their profession according to the customs of those times which were of human invention but nothing of Gods institution that they should sit in the chair of Moses As for the Second reason there is no marvel they had the impudence to question Iohns authority though themselves intruders when they were puft up with conceits of their authority though they had none when they were so proud and impudent as to conceive themselves righteous and despise others Luke 18.9 and to allege it in prayer to God though their Consciences might tell them they were covetous and unrighteous yea to deride Christ when he told them they could not serve God and Mammon Luke 16.14 Nor is the Third reason of force For Christ might question their authority though he did not when they questioned Johns and he seems after John to have done it in calling them a generation of vipers blind guides with sundry other expressions disparaging of them and their traditions And his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking of the chief Seats and to be called Rabbi Rabbi what is it but an evidence that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his seat which they did so ambitiously gape after As for the not in express words charging them with usurpation it is no marvail it is not related sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Iosephus is not related as imputed to them by Christ in any of the Evangelists Besides how irrational this argument is we read not that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses seat therefore he did it not every puny in Schools knows who hath learned that rule in Logick argumentum non valet ab authoritate negativè an
be termed for distinction sake St. Peters day c. yet saith Archbishop Whitgift in his answer to the second Admonition the 3 d. reason The Papists Saints days were appointed for the honouring and worshipping of the Saints by whose names they were called ours be ordained for the honouring of God for publick prayer and edifying the people by reading the Scriptures and Preaching neither are they called by the name of any Saint in any other respect than that the Scriptures which that day are read in the Church be concerning that Saint and contain either his calling preaching persecution martyrdom or such like The like is alleadged by Rainold conference with Hart ch 8. divis 2. Hooker Eccles. Policy l. 5. Sect. 71. yea T. C. the defender of the Admonition confesseth that the Church of England meaneth not that in these holy days the Saints should be honoured and Rivet on Exod. 20. praecept quartum acquits the Church of England from Idolatry by reason of our form of service and our doctrine of worshipping God onely Of which more also may be seen in Zanchius tom 4. in praece quartum loc 1. q. 2. c. As for the 10th errour That Christ descended into hell is in the Creed called the Apostles and is the 3d. Article of the Confession of the Church of England and is deduced by Augustin Epist. ad Evodium 99. from Acts 2.26 27. and how to understand it of other descent then the place of the damned or Limbus Patram which is the Papists tenent may be seen in Archhishop Vshers answer to the Jesuites challenge ch 5. Dr. Pearson his Exposition of the Creed on that Article and others The 12th I think neither the present Ministers nor any of the Bishops will assert The two last let them that hold them answer for themselves I say onely that they are such as hearers are not necessitated to assent to nor such as can justifie separation But it follows Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Object 5. Judas preached though a wicked man and no doubt 't was lawful yea the duty of Saints to hear him To this we say no doubt it was so But 1. Judas was not a visible wicked man at the time of his preaching but so close an hypocrite that he was not known to be so no not to the disciples but some of the present Ministers of England are visibly wicked and profane 2. Judas was chosen and called by Christ to be an Apostle commissioned by him to preach but the present Ministers of England are not so as hath been proved So that this is not at all to the business in hand I reply It is confessed that the present Ministers are not chosen and called by Christ to Preach as Iudas was and it may be also proved concerning the Ministers of the Congregational Churches whose calling may be questionable as well as theirs being often by a small company of ignorant persons many of them women who challenge power of election without Ordination or other help or giving the right hand of fellowship by Elders of other Churches nor are they all free from visible wickedness and prophaness And this may be somewhat to the business by allaying the vehemency of this Authours spirit against others But the chief use of this objection is to answer one exception of this Authour ch 2. That the present Ministers are not to be heard as gifted brethren because they walk disorderly For Iudas did walk disorderly and yet might be heard 'T is true Iudas was not so apparently a thief as others that are openly vitious yet Christ knew him to be a thief and a traitour when he appointed him to preach and forbade none to hear him preach the Gospel and therefore allowed hearing of evil men preach truth which is denyed by the Author of Prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers p. 43 44. and is frequently the reason of many people 's not hearing them that preach truth It is to be added that Christ had given some intimation of Judas his wickedness John 6.70 71. He goes on Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Object 6. But there are some good men amongst them and such as belong to God may we not hear good men To which briefly Answ. 1. That there are some among the present preachers of this day that are good men we shall not stand to deny Yet 2. We crave leave to say That they are all of them such as are sadly polluted and defiled by their complyance in respect of their standing in the Ministry Antichristian whose teachings Saints have no warrant to attend upon 3. The greater hopes we have of their goodness the more cautelous should we be of encouraging them in a false way that they by our relinquishment of them and separating from them after we have discharged all other duties we are satisfied are incumbent upon us to perform towards them may come to see their sin repent and do their first works that God and we may again receive them 4. Yet the goodness of any as to the main is no warrant for any to hold communion with them or attend upon their teachâ—ngs There are brethren that walk disorderly whom 't is the duty of Saints to separate from that the very best of the Ministers of England do so will not be denyed The incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. was as to the main for ought I know a good man yet were not the Saints at Corinth to hold communion with him till upon his repentance he was again received 2 Cor. 2 6. 5. 'T is utterly unlawfull to communicate with a devised Ministry upon what pretext soever 6. So is it for any to partake in other mens sins as hath been proved but every usurped Ministry is the sin of him though never so holy a person that exerciseth it I reply this objection being an argument ad hominem against this Author who hath represented all the present Ministers as walking disorderly deniers of Christs offices Antichristian Idolaters Scandalous even the best of them which what face he can say of them and yet acknowledge them good men is not easily conceivable they seem to me inconsistent speeches That their Ministry is Antichristian when they minister the word of God is also in my understanding oppositum in apposito a contradiction That they stand in that Ministry which they had by Episcopal ordination is so far from being their defilement that it seems to me their vertue and wisdome it being alwayes judged by me a great sin to renounce that ministry sith it is no other then of the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God which for any to disclaim is to go back from the service of Christ and if the present Ministers do stand in this Ministry the Saints are
for us shew that Christs words are at well meant of preaching in his name as of casting out devils at least the reason of them is of like force for the not prohibiting of men to Preach in his name as to cast out devils Whence I argue They may be heard Preach in Christs name who are not to be forbidden to Preach in Christs name But the present Ministers of England are not to be forbidden to Preach in Christs name therefore they may be heard Preach in Christs name The major is of it self evident there being no reason to be given why they that are allowed to Preach in Christs name should not be heard by the same allowance allowance to Preach being vain and frivolous without allowance for others to hear The minor is also proved by parity of reason for allowing them to preach as well as those who cast out Devils in Christs name yet joyned not with the Disciples sith so doing they did not speak evil of Christ nor were against him but for him nor is there so much reason of prohibiting the Ministers to preach in Christs name because they are not in a separated Church nor elected by the Members thereof as there was of prohibiting them that followed not with the Apostles to cast out Devils in Christs name If Christ would not have these forbidden to do a miracle in his name neither would he have the other forbidden to preach in his name which they do in effect who make it unlawfull to hear them 14. I shall adjoyn to this that our Saviour Matth. 7.22 23. where he alleageth the plea and expectation of formal hypocrites he doth not reject them for prophesying in his name but for their working iniquity thereby shewing that he allowed their prophesying in his name as good though not sufficient without obedience Whence I argue if their prophesying in Christs name who were workers of iniquity then much more their teaching in Christs name who are only supposed to be defective in outward calling or faulty in some actions consistent with Christianity is to be allowed and if their teaching be allowed then the hearing of them is by consequence allowed for these are conjugates 15. Our Lord Christ saith Luke 10.16 concerning the seventy Disciples he that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me The reason hereof is because they preached the same Doctrine if if there be an outward mission and the same Doctrine which Christ taught is not preached Christ is not heard but when the same Doctrine is heard which Christ taught he is heard and if it be rejected he is despised Whence I argue They may be lawfully heard by hearing of whom we may hear Christ. But by hearing of the present Ministers who preach the Doctrine of Christ we hear Christ therefore we may hear the present Ministers who preach the Dâ—â—trine of Christ. The reason of the minor is from that speech 〈◊〉 Christ John 7.16 my Doctrine is not mine but his that sent 〈◊〉 in the preachers Doctrine which he preacheth after Christ is not his own but Christs who sent him as an Embassadours message is his Kings not his own and by hearing him deliver it according to his Commission his Master is heard 16. This is further confirmed from Rom. 10.15 And how shall they preach except they be sent As it is written How beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of Peace and bring glad tydings of good things The citation of these words to prove that they cannot preach who are not sent doth presuppose 1. That they who preach the Gospel of Peace that bring the glad tydings of good things are sent to preach and that by hearing of it comes faith and that the word of God is heard else were the citation impertinent and the inference v. 17. inconsequent 2. That their feet are beautifull and that they are to be heard in this respect But I subsume the present Ministers who preach the Doctrine they undertake to teach preach the Gospel of Peace and bring the glad tydings of good things therefore are they sent their feet are beautifull and are to be heard 17. In the parable of the talents Matth. 25.15 or pounds Luke 19.13 our Saviour saith the Kingdom of Heaven is as when a noble man goes into a farr Country gives his Servants his money to trade with and they are to gain more thereby 1 Cor. 12.7.8 the gifts of the spirit are given to profit withall in which are reckoned the word of wisdome of knowledge teachers v. 28 29. Ephes. 4.11 for the edâ—fying of the body of Christ in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of God Whence it is apparent 1. That ability to teach the things of Christ to edifie the body of Christ is a gift of Christ 2. That they who do use this ability do it unto Christ's advantage according to his design 3. That not to improve this gift is to disappoint Christ of his end in giving it 4. For any to hinder this improvement is sinfull Whence I argue They that have ability to preach the Gospel have received a Talent from Christ to improve it their improving is by preaching this cannot be done unless they be heard therefore the not hearing them makes voyd the use of that gift The present Ministers who preach the Gospel have received this gift and by preaching do use iâ— therefore they are to be heard and the not hearing them is to dâ—sable them from improving it and consequently is a sin against Christs designe 18 As from the end of Christs gifts so from the duty of them that have received them we may prove that the present Ministers are to be heard 1 Pet. 4 10.11 As every man hath received the gift even so Minister the same one to another as good Stewards of the manifold grace of God If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God Whence I argue If the present Mâ—nisters have received a gift to speak the Oracles of God then are they to Minister the same and consequently to be heard This is acknowledged by this Author ch 2. in these words That Christ hath appointed some as Ministers by vertue of an office power to dispense the Ordinances of the Gospel untill his Second Coming is granted by all that 't is permitted to others as their liberty enjoyned them as their duty having received gifts and enablements from the Lord thereunto to improve those gifts in preaching praying c. for the edification of the body of Christ though not solemnly invested into office is assented unto at least by some of those with whom we have to do whence a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or as gifted brethren doth necessarily arise But the present Ministers have received a gift to speak the Oracles of God as experience shews and that equally if not beyond the teachers of the
truths into others it is seldom without somewhat that alienates them from others and engageth them to their own society with diminution of love to others if not worse dispositions and practices Whence many remain in ignorance profaneness and errours being hardned in opposition to the present Ministers whom I deny not may give too much occasion by their loose walking and negligent Preaching in which they are not to be excused yet is not the opinion of not hearing them while they Preach the Gospel thereby justified but both to be blamed as guilty of hindring the good of mens souls and Christs kingdom and so in some sort Antichristian 39. Nor are the effects of this opinion onely pernicious to them who are without but evil also to them within whether Ministers or people To Ministers in that by the neglect of hearing them and such esteem as is due to them for their work sake they are disheartened and by this wrangling opposition disquietness they meet with disabled in a great measure from doing that good which otherwise might be done Yea by this opinion their Ministery though they Preach the Gospel is disanulled and accounted as accursed So the people in that they are divided become unpeaceable some for not hearing being unnecessarily cast on the danger of the Laws deprived of Estates and Liberty in many places growing empty of fruitful knowledge exposed to the attempts of Seducers who lie in wait to deceive filled with bitterness of spirit towards others though profuse towards those that agree with them and in a word there is a sad breach between Christians of the same profession of faith which is most contrary to the union which they should have in Christ by the same spirit and I wish it were not true that it is fulfilled now which was foretold 2 Tim. 4.3 4. That men heap to themselves Teachers after their own lusts 40. The many absurdities which are consequent on the opinion should disswade us from entertaining it For if it be true That it is unlawful to hear the present Ministers then it is not lawfull for us to invite them to Preach or to exhort them to it or to rejoyce in it or to pray to God that they may or to praise God for their Preaching Then it is better that Quakerism Ranting Barbarism Rudeness should be spread among the people then they be urged to hear the publick Preachers That Magistrates do ill to command people to go to hear them That they countenance or maintain them then it is good at Sermon time to stay at home idle or to lie in an Ale-house rather then to go to hear them the non-preaching Readers are as tolerable as Preaching Ministers their forbearing to Preach is avoiding of sin the less they Preach and the less they are heard Preach there is the less sin their silencing is no evil not they to be blamed for not Preaching for it can be no evil for them to forbear Preaching if it be a sin for others to hear them they ought rather to forbear Preaching then to draw others to sin And yet so wild is this opinion that many of them that refuse to hear and condemn as this Authour doth the hearing of them do yet except against non-preaching Ministers blame the Ministers for not Preaching more frequently and those that hinder their Preaching Whereas if the hearing them were unlawful it were good counsel to perswade men not to hear their Sermons nor to Preach them which would introduce Irreligion or some pernicious Errour as the state of things now stands in this Nation Sect. 16. Some passages in the writings of Mr. John Goodwin opposite to thâ— Book Intituled Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers For a conclusion whereas the Book mentioned in my Epistle to the Reader Intituled Pâ—elatical Preachers none of Christs Teacher shewed to me as that which did make men Separatists and the book was written not in a Logick form and therefore not answered by me yet the Authour being supposed the same with him who Printed in the year 1653. two books against some that about baptism left his Communion I have here added some passages with animadversions which shew how his separation in this latter book crosseth his sayings in the former In his 40. Quaeries Qu. 10. I read thus When men may separate that which is precious from that which is vile and enjoy it thus separated and apart without suffering any inconvenience by that which is vile is it a point of wisdome in them to deprive themselves of the enjoyment of what is precious because there is somewhat which they suppose to be vile near to it Why then doth lie dissuade from hearing the present Ministers who preach precious Doctrine because of some things conceived vile in them yet may be separated from that which is precious Qu. 14. The experience of many years in the reformed Churches abroad and of some years amongst our selves at home hath abundantly taught and informed us that the said question hath yielded little other fruit unto those that have set their hearts to it yea and to others also but Contention Strife Emulations evil Surmizings Distractions Confusions Alienations of mind and Affections amongst Christian Brethren evill Speakings Vilifyings Revilings needless and wastfull Expence of time loss of many precious opportunities for matters of greatest consequence unprofitable disturbings and turmoylings of weak Consciences shatterings scatterings rendings and tearings such of Churches and Christian Societies who till this root of bitterness sprang up amongst them walked in love and with the light of Gods countenance shining on them holding the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace edifying one another in their most holy faith c. These things were not the fruit of that question but of that separation which was made by occasion of it and are as true of the separation this Authour maintained in his later book Qu. 23. Whether ought not the law of edification 1 Cor. 14.26 to over-rule all Laws and Precept concerning Spiritual and Church Administrations as the law of Salus populi ought to umpire and over-rule all politique laws and constitutions in their respective executions If so the supposed laws of outward calling of Ministers should not be urged so as to hinder people from hearing Ministers because of some defect supposed therein when they may be heard to edification of the hearers In his Water-dipping Consideration 17. Is it not then presumption in the highest and an assuming of an Antichristian power to impose Laws upon Christian societies which the Lord Christ never imposed yea and to cesure and scandalize them with the odious and reproachful terms of Antichristian and unclean onely for the transgression of their own Laws What doth he less who forbids to hear in his latter Book the present Ministers Consideration 22. Whereas Antichrist himself is not more Antichristian then in claiming and exercising such a dominion over the faiths of his Proselytes and Disciples by vertue
as those 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Cor. 12.20 21. not those practices charged on the present Ministers here by this Author are meant by disorderly walking 2 Thess. 3.6 which is also confirmed by 1 Thess. 5.14 where after the Apostle had beseeched them v. 12 13. to know them which laboured among them and were over them in the Lord and admonished them and to esteem them very highly for their works sake which shews he expected not of them other works for the earning of their Bread than their labour in the Word and Doctrine he adds now we exhort you Brethren warn them that are unruly the same word which is 2 Thess. 3 6. translated disorderly whom he distinguisheth from thâ— feeble minded and weak and therefore is meant of Brethren who sinned openly and wilfully and not of Ministers who do yield to that which is controverted even by learned and godly men whether it be evil at all and if it be evil it s not of such a kind as the Apostle any where censures so as he doth this disorderly walking and it s most likely is practised out of ignorance errour fear or other motive which may befall an holy and upright man Nor is there any force in this Authors reasoning that the practice of the Ministers must be disorderly walking unless they can shew an Apostolical written Tradition for those things they practise For 1. it doth not appear that the Tradition 2 Thess. 3 6. of the Apostle is any other than the command v. 10. that if any would not work he should not eat which is not improbable from the connexion of the following verses with this which also makes it probable that the disorderly walking v. 6. is no other than being idle and busie-bodies the Apostle acquitting himself from behaving himself disorderly v. 7. in that he wrought with his hands that he might not be chargeable to any of them v. 8. and then they need to bring no other tradition to acquit themselves from disorderly walking than their labouring in the Word and Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 5.17 18. 2. If the Tradition be further extended to those mentioned 2 Thess. 2.15 It will not be necessary that they may be acquitted from disorderly walking that they produce for themselves an Apostolical written Tradition for a Liturgie Surplice or Crossing they think it concerns him that accuseth them as walking disorderly in doing them that he produce an Apostolical Tradition against the use of them For being as they conceive in themselves things indifferent they think it enough that there is no Apostolical precept forbidding them and then they have this Apostolical Tradition for them Rom. 4.15 where no Law is there is no Transgression If it be replied in things that pertain to Gods Worship there must be an express Institution or else the practice of it is walking disorderly besides what is said before in answer to the first Chapter Sect. 3. it may be retorted where is your Apostolical written Tradition by Institution for your Church Covenant Infant Baptism Election of Ministers by most voices excommunication of members in a Congregational Church by the major part with many more To use your own words if you have not as there is nothing more certain you are disorderly Walkers and to be separated from as well as the present Ministers if the Apostles argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disordâ—rly But who I pray are these disorderly Walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Eadem in te cudatur saba As much may be said of the Separatists if by Apostolical Tradition be meant an Institution for every thing used in Worship and Church Government 3. This Authors Argument if it proceed thus Every one that hath not a written Apostolical Tradition for what he doth or that doth otherwise than the Apostles Tradition requires walks disorderly which is the force of his reasoning then every one that sins in any kind is a disorderly walker for sure he hath no Apostolical Tradition for any sin and then this Author if he be not a Perfectist nor thinks himself excluded from the number of those of whom it is said James 3.2 In many things we offend all and 1 Joh. 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves must acknowledge himself a disorderly walker and to be separated from 4. The present Ministers I imagine will be apt to alledge for themselves that they have Apostolical written Tradition even for those practices for which they are accused as disorderly walkers to wit Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and be ready to recriminate this Author and those of his mind as disorderly walkers in separating from their Brethren disobeying their Ministers and Governours commanding things lawful and to be separated from as practising of division To conclude this matter Were it granted that the present Ministers of England were disorderly walkers and that they were to be withdrawn from yet this doth not prove that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren or that the best of them cannot by Saints be accounted as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Partly because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of exclusion of himself from hearing praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such a one be present unless it be determined that every one must not only examine himself before he comes to the Lords Supper which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. 11.28 but also every Brother even his Minister with whom he is to joyn in Gospel Communion yea and hath power to excommunicate his Brother or liberty notwithstanding the Institution of Christ to exclude himself which sure is no Apostolical Tradition but a far more disorderly walking than most of those things the practice whereof is made by this Author the Ministers disorderly walking Besides the injunction to every Christian to withdraw himself not to keep Company 2 Thess. 3.6 14. being expressions which note not acts imposed by Church Governours but such as they ought of their own accord to practice are to be understood of such familiar private arbitrary Communion in entertainments and other societies as they are at liberty to do or not to do or might do were it not for this consideration not such Communion as if they omit they omit the Worship of God which he hath appointed and so break his Commandment Partly also because if the withdrawing were upon publick censure of the Community yet it must not be according to their own rule without a gradual proceeding of endeavouring conviction and precedent admonition which being not done to the present Ministers of England to separate from them even the best in hearing and other Gospel Communion is irregular and unjustifiable I go on to examine what follows CHAP. 3. ARG. 3. Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian is not alwayes unlawful THose that act in